Should We Go Over The "Fiscal Cliff"?

[Random Nerd]

Originally Posted by jeffbcrandall

I just had a few questions about your numbers and the terms you were using.

Can you define "Social Safety Nets" in detail so we know more specifically what you are referring to and we can verify the information.

Can you define "Corporate Welfare" and thusly what sorts of ways in which our current system allows them to pay such low rates, such as the rates in the example you gave?


Can you provide a link or reference from an official source that explains the costs of the war, and relatedly the YEARLY costs of the war to which allowed you to get to the number you gave?

The Bush tax cuts (including the ones we just made permanant for anyone making less than $400k/year) number seems correct based upon other information Ive seen, though one has to wonder what our current economy would look like if they were all taken away, if it stifled our economy, then that would reduce the money the government was able to take in, in taxes, which could turn into a net negative depending upon. I know people seemed pretty freaked out at those cuts expiring.

I agree that if the economy gets rolling again, then that will help on the revenue side, and reduce costs on things like welfare and unemployment.

Anyhow, if you could answer the above questions I would appreciate it, as it would give some common basis and understanding for us to be able to discuss the topic further .

The issue with figuring the cost of wars is hard. I have seen estimates ranging from 1 trillion to around 15trillion. The issue is that the wars were not all payed through one certain fund just like our military isn't.

As far as numbers on corporate welfare I found this link with numbers up to 2005. http://thinkbynumbers.org/government...re-statistics/

kinda out of date, but nothing more recent has been posted that I have seen. Again this money is somewhat laundered so it is tough to follow and track.

The truth is we have so much we could cut before we start with social safety nets. Also some programs we may spend X amount of money on, but actually have partial returns. SNAP(food stamps) actually has a decent return on investment. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supple...conomic_effect

[Yorutenchi]

This is also the only War in American history that we didn't get an additional added tax to pay for said war. THE ONLY EVER. In fact not only did we fail to raise taxes to fund the war....we cut taxes and put ourselves in a deficite.

[jeffbcrandall]

Originally Posted by Random Nerd

The issue with figuring the cost of wars is hard. I have seen estimates ranging from 1 trillion to around 15trillion. The issue is that the wars were not all payed through one certain fund just like our military isn't.

As far as numbers on corporate welfare I found this link with numbers up to 2005. http://thinkbynumbers.org/government...re-statistics/

kinda out of date, but nothing more recent has been posted that I have seen. Again this money is somewhat laundered so it is tough to follow and track.

The truth is we have so much we could cut before we start with social safety nets. Also some programs we may spend X amount of money on, but actually have partial returns. SNAP(food stamps) actually has a decent return on investment. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supple...conomic_effect

Thanks, I checked the information provided, and I guess looking at that, both of the numbers, while over 50 billion per year (at the time) are both still under $100 billion per year (at the time). Those would be part of the general budget to look into, but not neccessarily target first for cutting/adjustments. The big things like Social Security, Defense, and Medicare/Medicaid/Obamacare, would be the three largest portions (by far) of the budget that would need to be looked into to figure out how things could be adjusted to allow for as much savings as possible, without harming those on SS, or using Medicare/Medicaid/Obamacare(when it comes), or hindering our Defense too much as to hinder their ability to precent an attack on our country or our citizens. The rest of the budget would just need to be gone through line by line and it would have to be determined what was 100% neccessary, and what could be scaled back/removed without causing immediate harm to anyone, relatively speaking, in the process.

And yeah, the wars things is likely to be rough to calculate in total, for the yearly budgetary concerns one would need to be able to figure out just how much we are currently (as in 2012) spending on the war to be able to see just how much we would be saving if they were fully ended, and we left those countries fully to their own devices.

I personally have no real issue with food stamps, however I would like to see them more restricted as to what they can be used for. (Like no soda, no ultra-expensive/high end foods like really expensive steaks and such for a couple of examples).

Definitely lots for congress to figure out. I just hope 2 months is enough for them to deal with the sequestration and the debt ceiling issues.

[the_cardfather]

Originally Posted by Yorutenchi

This is also the only War in American history that we didn't get an additional added tax to pay for said war. THE ONLY EVER. In fact not only did we fail to raise taxes to fund the war....we cut taxes and put ourselves in a deficite.

We didn't raise taxes to pay for Desert Storm, but that was a rather brief engagement.

The principle is the same regardless of whether its military or entitlements:

You want a war? pay for it. You want more hand outs? pay for them. You want the government to provide roads? pay for them.

Instead we have borrow and print. People would be ticked off if every time you passed something taxes went up. Less stuff would get passed that's for sure.

[Random Nerd]

Originally Posted by jeffbcrandall

Thanks, I checked the information provided, and I guess looking at that, both of the numbers, while over 50 billion per year (at the time) are both still under $100 billion per year (at the time). Those would be part of the general budget to look into, but not neccessarily target first for cutting/adjustments. The big things like Social Security, Defense, and Medicare/Medicaid/Obamacare, would be the three largest portions (by far) of the budget that would need to be looked into to figure out how things could be adjusted to allow for as much savings as possible, without harming those on SS, or using Medicare/Medicaid/Obamacare(when it comes), or hindering our Defense too much as to hinder their ability to precent an attack on our country or our citizens. The rest of the budget would just need to be gone through line by line and it would have to be determined what was 100% neccessary, and what could be scaled back/removed without causing immediate harm to anyone, relatively speaking, in the process.

And yeah, the wars things is likely to be rough to calculate in total, for the yearly budgetary concerns one would need to be able to figure out just how much we are currently (as in 2012) spending on the war to be able to see just how much we would be saving if they were fully ended, and we left those countries fully to their own devices.

I personally have no real issue with food stamps, however I would like to see them more restricted as to what they can be used for. (Like no soda, no ultra-expensive/high end foods like really expensive steaks and such for a couple of examples).

Definitely lots for congress to figure out. I just hope 2 months is enough for them to deal with the sequestration and the debt ceiling issues.

To be fair food stamps as far as items bought regulate themselves. For example the amount per person varies between each state, but is between 4-5$ per adult.(less for children)

This essentially means that if a single person spends what like 7-10 dollars for a package of steaks(i have no idea what they cost i each cheap meat) then they spent their budget for 2+ days. As far as soft drinks and stuff why? These are part of peoples diets who don't get food stamps also. This would essentially be the same thing as saying no one can buy soft drinks and would be looked at as more government control.

I don't know how well medicaid and stuff is regulated, but food stamps are highly regulated. You have to prove total taxable earnings for at least 1 month total as well as proof of current employment. Then you have to bring in bills for all necessary expenses.(car insurance, car payments, utility bills, and rent/mortgage bills)

What is necessary expenses varies by state. For example for urban places a car might not be necessary while in rural areas a large number of jobs are commuted to or there is a lack of public transit. This is one of the main reason why each state handles its own benefits and the federal government gives each state a portion of the total budget for SNAP.

I really hope that as a country we can cut things in a bipartisan way, and that we go far beyond each parties rhetoric and look at everything we spend money on. Not just military and social programs.

Then I hope we can find ways to inject money as need be into the economy with a focus on infrastructure including teaching and education. We have fell so far from the top in education it is silly.

Another thing we can invest further in is making more government buildings green. In most instances of this we can actually save money down the road by cutting energy cost. This not only saves money in the future, but provides decent paying jobs, helps economic growth, and increases revenue from taxes.

[Yorutenchi]

Originally Posted by the_cardfather

We didn't raise taxes to pay for Desert Storm, but that was a rather brief engagement.

The principle is the same regardless of whether its military or entitlements:

You want a war? pay for it. You want more hand outs? pay for them. You want the government to provide roads? pay for them.

Instead we have borrow and print. People would be ticked off if every time you passed something taxes went up. Less stuff would get passed that's for sure.

Desert storm was no where near the same level of operation that we are engaged in currently. It was brief, with less soldiers, and we had a mission. Mission was to get in and get out. However we left before we did much and the leader took over and gave us problems 15 years down the road.

currently the entitlements are a temporary thing. If all goes well within 5 years it could be all better and people can look back at the recession as a distant memory. Though its also possible that our growth is hampered by several different things. The big things that worry me is that we havent' done much to change what got us into the mess in the first place.

1) Get out of the war
2) don't drop taxes on the very high up
3) Regulate the banks
4) Provide more green energy to get off of forgien oil
5) Upgrade our education system
6) Legalize weed nationally which will save money from the "war on drugs" as the drug trade will collapse without the staple product of weed.
7) Raise the minimum wage to 8.50
8) Programs for secondary education and job training
9) Make stuff in production
10) Balance the budget

[Undisputed-]

Originally Posted by Random Nerd

This is the kind of attitude that leads us to these problems. Cuts will be made, and we can only hope that these are done responsibly in a balanced approach.(meaning having no sacred cows like military, corporate welfare, or safety nets)

Instead of cutting things maybe we should try to reform them. Change a few numbers here and there while maintaining each and every program.

There will be no cuts, its not in the interest of politicians. They are in perpetual campaign mode and will do whatever it takes to give everyone "free" stuff. They are going to kick the can down the road until the real cliff, a currency collapse. At the moment Americans are mostly insulated from the real cost of big government because it's paid for with debt, if they actually had to pay for it no one would want to.

Originally Posted by Random Nerd

How is a bipartisan "thing" evil? Are you so far right that even moderates scare you? This just goes to show you how far right some people in this country are. Relative to how far right far right goes the far left people seem moderate lol.

The publicly accepted political spectrum is somewhere between Romney and Obama. Citizen if you don't fit in that narrow view then you are a dangerous extremist.

[Yorutenchi]

We don't need bi-partisanship. We need non-partisanship. Its sad as to how much political parties are so rooted in our system. I was talking to a co-worker about politics and I expressed my view that we should get rid of all parties. and their response was
"And what? Go to socialism?"

I was so taken abake by the display of ignorance that for a moment I thought I misheard them. It took about 5 minutes of explaining but I was finally able to get it through their head that democracy isn't rooted in a democrat vs republican war. Its actaully impeded by it.

[Undisputed-]

Hilarious article:

10 Ways To Fight Back Against Payroll Tax Hike

Apparently fighting back is reducing your standard of living, so government can get bigger.

[bocephus]

Originally Posted by Undisputed-

Hilarious article:

10 Ways To Fight Back Against Payroll Tax Hike

Apparently fighting back is reducing your standard of living, so government can get bigger.

Its called living with in your means, not reducing your standard of living.

[Undisputed-]

Originally Posted by bocephus

Its called living with in your means, not reducing your standard of living.

I'm saving and not living off of credit or the state so I suppose I am? It's not like we are going to see any of the money being taxed. It's going to be "borrowed" to blow up million dollar missiles and prop up dictators with foreign aid.

Although I just found out I'm getting a raise so that should help I suppose :P

[ljossberir]

Originally Posted by bocephus

Its called living with in your means, not reducing your standard of living.

The means newly created by government, as they persist in living outside their means... raising the debt ceiling again, really? Refusing to negotiate? Refusing to discuss cuts so that this debt ceiling doesn't come up again and again? Obama should have warned us what he meant by "change."

[bocephus]

Originally Posted by ljossberir

The means newly created by government, as they persist in living outside their means... raising the debt ceiling again, really? Refusing to negotiate? Refusing to discuss cuts so that this debt ceiling doesn't come up again and again? Obama should have warned us what he meant by "change."

He said today he didnt want to have to go through the debt ceiling issues again. He wants something done before the next critical time period which is in March or April.

I am all for cutting military back some, maybe bring back some soldiers. Want to see some investment into our infrastructure. But we are stagnant right now because neither side wants to give anything. Until we change those sitting, we will continue on the path we are on, no matter who is sitting in the big seat.

[ljossberir]

Originally Posted by bocephus

He said today he didnt want to have to go through the debt ceiling issues again. He wants something done before the next critical time period which is in March or April.

I am all for cutting military back some, maybe bring back some soldiers. Want to see some investment into our infrastructure. But we are stagnant right now because neither side wants to give anything. Until we change those sitting, we will continue on the path we are on, no matter who is sitting in the big seat.

Neither side wants to give, indeed.

What Obama seems to want is a condition where these reductions can be discussed in which the Republicans have no leverage, in essence to force them between the rock of default and the hard place of surrendering on Republican spending causes.

They're both guilty, but this time Obama happens to be at blame.